How to break the impasse and re-open the government?

Jump to Last Post 1-6 of 6 discussions (107 posts)
  1. jackclee lm profile image81
    jackclee lmposted 7 months ago

    It seems to me, this whole debate over the immigration crisis hinges on one word - “wall”. The current impasse between Trump and the Congressional leaders is the building of his wall. How do we get over this sticking point?

    Here is my proposal.
    President Trump should compromise and call this bill “border security” and not even mention the wall at all. This way, it makes the target of better border security the goal. It is generic and broad and a sweeping term which can cover whatever he deemed necessary. When it is presented that way to Congress, who can be against it?
    Once the bill is passed, he can do what he wants...like building a wall, or increase surveillance or increase border guards or use of drones...
    Do you see what I mean?
    This also gives the democrat leadership a way out. They can give Trump the 6 billion dollars he ask for and not be hung up on the wall.
    The government can reopen and end this shut down.

    For example, it is exactly like saying we want to inprove the nations “infrastructure” bill which was close to 900 billion dollars under the previous administration.
    The details was not spelled out. It could mean better highways, repair bridges, build new bridges, and airports and docks and a host of other projects all lumped into one.
    Why not?

    What do you think?
    Any other ideas to break the impasse?

    1. Randy Godwin profile image91
      Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, he could simply lie about the use of the money as it would be normal for him, Of course, everyone would know it was a lie which you guys are okay with.


      Mitch needs to let the bills reopening the govt go for a vote and then we would see which senators want to keep it closed. Blame him why don't you?

      1. jackclee lm profile image81
        jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        Did you complaint when Obama lied to pass the ACA bill? Remember “you csn keep your Dr. if you like your Dr.” ?

        1. Randy Godwin profile image91
          Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Did he say Mexico would pay for the wall? I can give you ten Trump lies to every one of Obama's but you wouldn't learn a thing from it, Jack.

        2. promisem profile image98
          promisemposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          I did keep my doctor. So did everyone else I know.

    2. crankalicious profile image91
      crankaliciousposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      In all honesty, Jack, I think that Trump should declare a national emergency, get his funding for his wall, and then government will get re-opened. From his perspective, that's what I think he should do. There's precedent for him to do that, so go ahead. Then he can declare victory and keep his promise to his base.

      Here's a question though - why is he dealing with wall funding now? He had control of the House and the Senate. Why did he not get the wall passed before November?

      1. Randy Godwin profile image91
        Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        And he can set a precedent for the next Democratic president to do the same thing with climate change, Crank. He can declare a fake national crisis--in that case it may actually be a real crisis--and the Republicans cannot fight it.  Dumb move on Trump's part!

        1. crankalicious profile image91
          crankaliciousposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          I'm not sure it makes much difference. How much money have we already spent building border fences and walls and on border security? Presidents use executive power all the time - the Iraq War, for instance - nobody cares. Go ahead, build your wall.

          Ideally, he should work with Congress to come to some compromise, but barring that, why not just move forward the way he wants? I'm more interested in seeing government re-opened at this point.

          And why shut the government down over this? Why try to pass wall funding now? Why didn't he do this when he had control of Congress? Does he really want a wall or does he just want to play games? This seems more like a political strategy than an actual need.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image91
            Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Trump's pride is worth more to him than those out of work, and as you point out, he couldn't do it with both houses so why does he think he could do it with one?  Boggles the mind!

            1. crankalicious profile image91
              crankaliciousposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              Randy,

              I have something that's been bothering me and I'm just going to say it.

              You look like a Republican. I'm sorry to say, and this is my own bias speaking, but if I saw you on the street, I'd assume you voted for Trump. I'm really sorry to say that.

              Have you been discriminated against much because of this?

              1. promisem profile image98
                promisemposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                I grew up in the factory suburbs of Cleveland. Plenty of people who look like Randy were Democrats. They also were mainly union workers.

              2. Randy Godwin profile image91
                Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                What?? Explain yourself Crank! I resent that remark!! mad

                1. GA Anderson profile image92
                  GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  Ha! I was waiting for that Randy. You just don't look "enlightened" enough to be a Democrat.

                  Wait, before you respond, let me get up off the floor and catch my breath.

                  I bet you have a couple dogs and a 4-wheel drive truck too! OMG! I can't stop myself.

                  But really, you do have a closet full of plaid shirts and tasseled loafers don't you?

                  This is too easy. Com'on bud, tell the truth, that picture is really your brother isn't it?

                  Wait, wait, I got more ...

                  GA

                2. crankalicious profile image91
                  crankaliciousposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  Just my bias speaking, really. You look tough, military-like. If I saw you crossing the street, I'd think Republican.

                  That said, I live in a town of liberal wussies.

                  Strangely, I have a very conservative friend. He thinks Republicans are wussies and I think liberals are wussies. It's a very interesting conversation.

      2. jackclee lm profile image81
        jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        It was Paul Ryan who stopped it. He was the Speaker and he was the one that sets the agenda. Remember in the beginning, he also worked on the repeal of the ACA and we knew how that turned out...
        Paul Ryan is a RINO.

        1. crankalicious profile image91
          crankaliciousposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Show me how Paul Ryan is a RINO. That's crazy. What is he then, if not a Republican?

  2. Live to Learn profile image82
    Live to Learnposted 7 months ago

    The simplest solution is for Congress and the President to stop posturing like spoiled brats and do what we pay them to do. Find compromise which serves the best interests of all the people.

    What's the old line? 'You can't always get what you want, but if you try real hard you might just get what you need.'

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Impossible to find a compromise that "serves the best interests of all the people", for the two disagree on just what those interests are or how to achieve them.

      But that's how compromise works: you don't get all that you want, and the "interests of the people" suffer some as a result...but not as much as they would if it went totally against your opinion. 

      But compromise has not been offered; indeed one side has stated loud and clear, several times, that there will be NO compromise.  That the end decision will be exclusively theirs.

      I personally do not believe that that is what we pay them to do.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image91
        Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        Did you pay Trump to own the shutdown, Dan?  Or did you pay him to keep the promise of Mexico paying for the wall? Did you really believe Mexico would pay for the wall?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Did you pay Pelosi to refuse any sort of compromise?  How much did you give her?  What is the cost of buying a Democrat now?  Were you ever, not ignorant enough, but stupid enough to think Mexico would write a check for the wall?

          1. Randy Godwin profile image91
            Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Still not answering plain questions, eh Dan. I don't blame you though.  Since I do not want to appear as you do I'll answer your queries.

            Yes, apparently she's paid by our taxes so I suppose I indirectly pay her to represent me. The cost of buying a Democrat is whatever her salary is, like your idol Trump.


            No, knowing Trump's past lawsuits, vulgarities. and especially his distaste for the truth, I would never believe anything he promised to do except cozy up to Putin. See how easy that was, Dan?  tongue

      2. Aime F profile image83
        Aime Fposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        You said that one side has stated there will be no compromise.... what compromise has the other side offered? Genuine question.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          One side has not offered anything.  One side has offered only a complete refusal to compromise.

          Which one seems better to YOU?  The silent one or the one making it very plain it is 100% their way with no compromise possible?

          1. Credence2 profile image81
            Credence2posted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Both are equally guilty.

            1. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              If you mean Republicans and Democrats, I don't agree.

              They hammered out a compromise that Trump rejected. They did their job.

          2. Aime F profile image83
            Aime Fposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            I wouldn’t say either of those are “better”. If neither side is offering a compromise to help reach a solution then neither is being productive. Does it really matter in which fashion they each refuse to compromise?

          3. IslandBites profile image85
            IslandBitesposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            One side has offered only a complete refusal to compromise.

            This side? Or this is the silent one?

            "If we don't get what we want, one way or another, whether is through you, through the military, anything you want to call, I will shut down the government."

            SMH

        2. promisem profile image98
          promisemposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Actually, there was a bipartisan compromise that Trump rejected. It included $25 billion for border security.

          https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/natio … -519361171

  3. Marie Flint profile image86
    Marie Flintposted 7 months ago

    Yes, I see your point, Jack. Because everyone knows the President's intent, though, (and because he wants it that way), even "border security" will bring up images of a "wall." There must be a reason for the impasse, and I don't believe it's financial.

    Being only a second generation American, I know my great-grandfather came here before the term "illegal immigrant" was ever created. Lumbering companies were hiring. Men in Finland were apt to be drafted by the Russian military. At the time, that was the choice for my great-grandfather. So, even though it meant giving up land inheritance as the eldest son, my great-grandfather chose coming to a new land where opportunity was calling. This is only one example of why people come to the United States--opportunity. The spirit that moves people should not be denied. It's made our country great.

    Like the law of tithe, I believe one-tenth (10%) of our nantional budget should be used as a kind of charity, both for those below poverty level in America and for immigrants, whether this charity be educational, provisional, or medical. Yes, if it seems we need more than 10%, we have a problem. Then, private organizations have to take up the gap. Private efforts should be the first cause, anyway--not the government.

    I'm barely touching the subject, and I realize it.

    As I have said before, I don't like the idea of a wall. The sight creates reflections back to Berlin and even the Great Wall of China. What are these walls based upon? Partly fear, partly control. While some control may be necessary, especially for our southern borders, it seems, the fear element is very negative and should have no place in the decision-making process. So, I believe, there is the catch.

    If the wall is really necessary, a stipulation to how long this wall will remain should be put into the equation. The United States, then, would in effect be saying, "We need a time out--we love you people, but we have to catch up to restructure." How long should the wall last? I would say not more than two generations (about 40 years tops).

    Legal immigration and international programs with Mexico, of course, need to continue.

    Time heals all wounds, they say. For those deeply affected by undocumented immigration, I would say, "Have patience. The situation will pass. It will take time, but we are looking forward to a better tomorrow."

    1. jackclee lm profile image81
      jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      I understand your sentiment. I come from a family of immigrants. There are members of my extended family that also came here illegally but though not undocumented. They were called paper sons...using false birth certificates...
      I am sympathetic to those who wants to come here and better their economic situations...I don’t fault them for that.
      My problem is with our current situation which has been growing for the last 30 years...
      As Milton Friedman states so succinctly...”you can have open borders or you can have a welfare state but you can’t have both”.
      That is where we are now in 2019.
      We have developed all these benefits like food stamp and assisted housing and medicaid and child care and disability and all of which was designed to help our citizens... less fortunate. Not for all...unfortunately, some of these programs are being abused by immigrants who tap into these benefits... I know it happens and I know it both first hand and via 2nd hand stories...
      Our country is wealthy and generous but there is a limit to that generosity.
      At a time when we run up a debt of 22 trillion dollars, how long do you think we can sustain this growing burden?

      1. Randy Godwin profile image91
        Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        I thought you were fine with the trillion and a half tax breaks for the rich, Jack. You do realize it added 10% to the deficit, or do you?

        1. jackclee lm profile image81
          jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          It is not tax break for the rich...I don’t consider my self rich and I am getting approx. $2000 reduction on my taxes in 2018. If I get it, many other people also qualify, I am middle class. The tax reform was also to stimulate the economy and raise revenue to the treasury... which it did. Look it up?
          We have generated record revenue for our country...but we also increased our spending which contributed to the debt...
          I have voiced my disagreement with the deficit spending...numerous times and warn of the pending disaster.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          When the rich pay less money than the average into the tax coffers of the country you have a complaint.  Until then all you have is greed, a demand that others give more than you do.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image91
            Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            If people do not want to be taxed more than the common person, they don't need to be rich.  When so few people control 90% of the money they should pay for the privilege of doing so.

            1. GA Anderson profile image92
              GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              Oh  Randy. Are you saying the opportunity to earn more money than the 'average Joe' is a privilege?

              GA

              1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                Sure it is, GA. Trump inherited his wealth as do many others. Are you stating being born into wealth is a privilege the Average Joe possesses?

                1. GA Anderson profile image92
                  GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  That is one segment Randy, what about the others? The Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos, or Warren Buffets, or Sam Waltons, or Jobs, Waynes, or Wozniaks ...?

                  Or any of our upper-middle class folks that have worked hard to have more income than the median income 'average Joe' earns. Are they born with privilege too?

                  Are they privileged to work their butts off for their above "average Joe" income?

                  GA

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                    Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    I feel those who have achieved vast wealth should realize they're taking needed earnings from the common people. They aren't in need of excesses. If the rules of capitalism were equitable, it would be this way. Patriotic, in a sense.

  4. Alphadogg16 profile image91
    Alphadogg16posted 7 months ago

    I personally believe Trump wants this shut down to continue as long as possible to impede all the criminal investigations and civil lawsuits against him.

    1. promisem profile image98
      promisemposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, it's a classic diversion move to invent a crisis and distract the country from the Russian investigations.

      Not many people seem to notice the new bombshell that Trump has had secret talks with Putin without any aides in the room and in one case took away his translator's notes.

  5. GA Anderson profile image92
    GA Andersonposted 7 months ago

    Okay, okay, so, like I know this was complied and edited for a specific purpose...

    And, like, I know everyone is talking about compromise..

    But here Chuck Schemer channels Pres. Trump on more than a few points.

    "We know that keeping  our borders safe from dangerous gangs, drug dealers, and human traffickers is critical"  (he did leave out the disease and rapists part)

    "... we let cross the border the millions who take jobs away from American workers."

    "... we stop them at the border, turn them around and push them back home."

    "...when we catch someone crossing the border, prosecute them, and deport them, we are solving the crime and punishing the criminal"

    "...we appropriate 6.5 Billions dollars, upfront, in this bill to bolster our security efforts. ... as if these 6.5 Billion dollars do not count" 


    Now, I am not a BIG Wall supporter. (I can see some new fencing as probably helpful), and I am not trying to validate either man's claims. I just thought this would give ya'll a grin, or grimace, depending on your perspective. For me it was a chuckle.

    (just click the image to give it a look)
    https://hubstatic.com/14363004.jpg

    GA

    1. Randy Godwin profile image91
      Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      GA, I couldn't find the date of this video?

      1. GA Anderson profile image92
        GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        It's old Randy, but not ancient. It was during the time of the 'Gang of 8' bill, 2013 I think, when Pres. Obama was in office. Does that matter?

        GA

        1. Randy Godwin profile image91
          Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          It may matter, GA. How much has been spent on the wall/fence since then could have a bearing on the issue now. And how much is already earmarked for maintenance and construction and hasn't been used would also be pertinent.

          1. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            What about the points mentioned Randy? Nothing was said about the wall. (although Schumer did make a reference to 630 miles of fencing in the video they, (the Democrats), have funded)

            Put the fence aside for a minute and look at the comments posted. How are they different from Pres. Trump's statements, (except for the disease and rapists part already noted)?

            GA

            1. Randy Godwin profile image91
              Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              But are you contending much hasn't already been ceded since that time?

              1. GA Anderson profile image92
                GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                I would have to think about that Randy. My first thoughts don't recall any concessions.

                But, I wasn't picking a side when I posted that video. I was just pointing out the similarities between Schumer's statements and Trump's.

                It is sort of the same point Wilderness repeatedly makes. Both sides are full of stuff. Schemer's comments - then - were in support of his party's president, but now with a different president, he doesn't hold the same views? What changed?

                GA

                1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                  Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  Well I seem to remember Democrats voting for funding of certain parts of a barrier in the past. And there's money already earmarked for wall construction and other security not being used. I just wondered where it came from.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image92
                    GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    You will have to keep wondering Randy. I don't support Pres. Trump's version of the concrete wall, (yes, I know that has changed now), so I don't have a ready answer.

                    And since I don't support that position, I don't have a partisan answer either.

                    But... I will say that my impression is that this is all about politics and not about the substance of the argument. On both sides of the aisle.

                    However, even though I disagree with the sincerity of the Democrat effort, I would not want to see thim completely give-in to Pres. Trump's demand. I want to see a compromise, and the results of that compromise are less important, to me, than the fact there there is a compromise.

                    GA

  6. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 7 months ago

    Both sides are playing politics, no doubt about it. However, in this particular instance, the Democrats have the better position. The wall really is an unnecessary, ineffective waste of money that could be better spent on smart border security. If it were politically expedient for the Democrats to fund the wall, they probably would. That wouldn't, however, change the fact that funding Trump's wall is nothing more than a waste of billions of dollars to appease Trump's ego. He was ready to sign the funding bill until he heard that Rush/Sean/Ann were upset.

    Under the current circumstances, it makes no sense for the Dems to do anything more than what they and the Republicans already agreed on and voted for. The only hold up here is Trump. He owns this shutdown.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Of course the dems would fund the wall if it were politically expedient; it they gained power or money from a political move.  It's what they are on the Hill for, after all; to build political power and fatten their wallets.

      And that's also why they refuse to build it; because it isn't politically expedient, because it won't help build their power or fatten their pocketbook.

      It has zero to do with whether a wall will help (it most certainly will), whether it is needed (it is) or anything else.  The refusal is 100% about denying Trump anything he asks for, good or bad, right or wrong, useful or a waste; whatever he wants shall be refused.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        In this case, the politically expedient position for the Democrats is also the right position for the country. The majority of Americans do not want the wall; the president has offered no convincing argument for why it would work; and the Republicans and Democrats already came to a funding agreement which Trump declared he would not sign. Trump is on the wrong side here.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          They came to a "funding agreement", did they?  And how much did that agreement provide to build a wall?

          The rest is simply statements of opinion; opinion that is based on hatred of Trump rather than factual reality.  The same as the Democratic party, then; if Trump wants it then refuse it without regard to necessity, usefulness, cost or anything else.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Well, since the Republicans approved the same funding bill as the Democrats, does that mean they also " refuse it [the wall] without regard to necessity, usefulness, cost or anything else"?

            And, I still haven't seen a convincing demonstration of "necessity, usefulness, cost or anything else."  Does it exist?

            1. jackclee lm profile image81
              jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              The reason for a wall is because we have tried all else and nothing have worked...in 30 plus years.
              We would be not having this discussion in 2019 if any of the other stuff has worked would we? Not eVerify, not drones, not more border agents, not war on drugs, not electronic sensors...
              If walls don’t work, then I guess that is our fate.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              "And how much did that agreement provide to build a wall?"

              Was there a reason you declined to answer the question?  Why did you change the topic to something else (republican complicity) rather than stick to the topic (democratic funding of the wall)? 

              You can start here for reasons to build a wall:  https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/01/07 … pHOy6I6nd4

              Here's another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT7c7wUktmg

              Of course, it requires an honest assessment of the problem of illegal aliens and it requires an honest assessment of the Israeli minister.  As neither is mud to sling at Trump that could be a problem.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                Lol, what is there to address? Obviously, neither Republicans nor Democrats nor the majority of Americans want a wall.

                I will look at your links.

                1. jackclee lm profile image81
                  jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  How is that obvious?
                  It is obvious only to people who hasn’t been paying attention and only get their news from the biased CNN or MSNBC...or the NYT...

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                    Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    Unlike the "fair and balanced" sources you watch, Jack!  You're a hoot! roll

                  2. jackclee lm profile image81
                    jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    It would be good for all here to go back and study the history of immigration starting at 1985...the last amnesty...
                    Offered by Reagan...
                    With eash passing year, the problem grew and all politicians said the right things but did very little...
                    It got to here because of people like Kate Steinle and so many other senseless deaths...
                    It got here because people like Pelosi and Schumer and their hypocrisy...
                    It has to stop and the wall is the last straw...

              2. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                Okay, well, an honest assessment of the information provided by the links is that it isn't much help at all in determining whether or not a wall would be effective on our southern border.  The Israeli wall is nothing like the steel-slat wall that Trump has described, and there is no information at all provided about cost versus effectiveness of Trump's proposed wall.

    2. jackclee lm profile image81
      jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      What if the shut down worked and he got what he wanted?
      Does he still own it?

      1. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        Yep.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)